Page images
PDF
EPUB

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1965

U.S. SENATE,
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Detroit, Mich.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in the Rack-
ham Building (Theater), 100 Farnsworth Avenue, Senator Edmund
S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Muskie.
Senator MUSKIE. The subcommittee will be in order.
We ought to start right on time since we have that opportunity.
All too seldom we have it.

It is a pleasure to be here in Detroit again. I always enjoy visiting this city and this State. Someday I would like to visit the Upper Peninsula and enjoy the trout fishing and clean, pure air of the outdoors.

I am delighted we have such a nice day this morning. I was interested as we flew in to see the billows of smoke and stacks.

We had a very interesting hearing in Washington yesterday. I noticed that your local newspapers covered it. The administration presented a position on this bill, S. 306, with which I think the six subcommittee members who were in attendance yesterday are in pretty strong disagreement at the moment. I think they quite clearly indicated it yesterday.

Incidentally, I would like to say that virtually all members of the subcommittee are deeply regret ful that they could not be in attendance this morning. I know that they all wanted to be here and all wanted to head this testimony from the industry and especially to have an opportunity to observe the facilities which you have set up to deal with the problem.

We have great faith in the automobile industry and its ability to provide the technology to deal with this problem. We would like

I have a prepared statement which I will include in the record. I would like to have as much time as possible for the witnesses who have so graciously consented to come here this morning to enlighten the subcommittee and through us, the Congress, on the technological aspects of this problem.

to help.

115

(The statement referred to follows:)

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR MUSKIE It is a pleasure for our Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to be here in Detroit, and it is most appropriate that in considering S. 306, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act, the portion dealing with automotive vehicles be discussed here, since this is the source of most of our automobiles.

We have invited representatives of the four principal producers of automobiles and the Automobile Manufacturers Association to discuss S. 306 as it affects the automobile industry. We understand that much has been done toward learning about and devising ways and means of controlling emissions from the automobiles in an effort to alleviate the overall air pollution problem: we are here today to learn of the accomplishments and unresolved problems from yon experts.

We are particularly interested in seeing the equipment that has been designed or is under development to correct the problem. We appreciate the cooperation of the industry in helping us prepare for this meeting and in making it possible to inspect the research facilities to gain a firsthand knowledge of what is being done.

This will not be the first time the subcommittee has heard testimony on automotive air pollution. In nearly every city we visited during the series of field hearings held in January and February of 1964, Government officials told us of their concern over the problems created by air pollution, Also, during our technical hearings on air pollution in Washington in June and July of 1864, we heard from the automobile industry consultants and others on the effects of automotive pollution and the problem of making corrections. We are now going into the matter further in search of a solution.

It is not our purpose to single out the automobile industry as the culprit in the creation of air pollution, but we must seek out all possible sources of pollution and attempt to arrive at a rational means of effecting reductions which are practicable of accomplishment.

During our technical hearings in Washington in June of 1964, witnesses of the automobile industry described their programs to meet the California standard. At that time, the question arose, during colloquies, of the desirability of haring the same degree of automobile emission controls throughout the Nation because of the varying extent to which these emissions might contribute to photochemical smog. I certainly do not doubt that photochemical smog in Los Angeles is a nroblem more serious in that metropolitan area than in other communities, But my concern is not that Los Angeles is more polluted, but that many communities suffer pollution of a degree more than they should.

The automobile manufacturers accepted the challenge of controlling detrimental auto emissions and have announced that exhaust emission controls rould be voluntarily installed on the 1967 models manufactured for sale in California and that the cars that are shipped there this fall will be modified to comply with the State law. This followed the program instituted by the automobile industry in the voluntary installation of crankcase emission controls nationally on 1.93 models.

It is evident that the automobile industry has the know-how to effert a con; siderable reduction in the amount of nolluting gases. It would seem. as I nointed out during previous discussion on the problem of control of exhaust and other sources of emissions, that if there is developed for California a system whereby there would he a substantial reduction in injurious exhaust emissions, it would he a service to the country to make this system available on every new car sold in America.

I believe that the automobile industry is in a position to move forward tņ assist in relieving the air pollution problem which has besét our country, and I am hopeful that the initiative which has already been shown will be carried to general application.

Our first witness is Mr. Harry Williams, managing director of the Automobile Manufacturers Association. Now if we were in Washington, Mr. Williams, we would welcome you but I guess yon are in

a position to welcome me and I will be delighted to hear your state

ment.

STATEMENT OF HARRY A. WILLIAMS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE A. DELANEY, SMOG CONSULTANT

Mr. WILLIAMS. Senator, we are delighted to have you with us. We think it is a fine thing that you would take the time to come on here to Detroit and meet us here on our home grounds and take the opportunity and time to go out and see the facilities this afternoon. We think you are going to be impressed with the amount of effort and facilities that are devoted to this problem and have been for a long time.

We are simply delighted to have you with us. You brought some awfully good weather, probably too good because you saw a lot of our smoke as you did come in.

I will get right to this, Senator, and make it as brief as we can to bring you up to date since the last time we appeared before your committee.

My name is Harry A. Williams. I am managing director of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., and appear here on behalf of member companies of AMA.

With me, on my left, are George A. Delaney, smog project consultant to the association, and four distinguished engineering representatives of the passenger car manufacturers. They are: on my right, Harry F. Barr, vice president, engineering staff of General Motors Corp. He is also chairman of the Engineering Advisory Committee of the Automobile Manufacturers Association.

On his right is B. W. Bogan, vice president and director of engineering of Chrysler Corp.

Next to Mr. Delaney is Wallace S. Berry, director of automotive research, American Motors Corp., and to his left is Herbert L. Misch, vice president, engineering and research staff, Ford Motor Co.

We welcome this opportunity to express our views on S. 306. We appreciate your coming to Detroit to take a firsthand look at the vehicle company facilities set up to work on the problem for which we all seek solutions.

Senator MUSKIE. I think in my time I have owned a product of each of these companies.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I feel rather comfortable here this morning in the fact that probably the outstanding engineering brains of the world are sitting on my right and left.

Senator Muskie. And we are in a building dedicated, as I understand, to these fine engineers. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to advise that your committee recommends and the Congress decides that all new cars should be equipped with exhaust control systems of the types now becoming available to meet the standards set in California, the automobile manufacturers are in a position to manufacture and install the equipment, assuming that adequate leadtime is provided.

As I testified before your committee last year, the vehicle manufacturers have been engaged in a long and intensive research program into the subject of vehicle emissions and the relationship to air pollution and smog. There has been a 12-year program which has coordinated the research efforts and has led to the development of engine systems designed to meet California standards.

I want to emphasize that the vehicle manufacturers stand ready to pass on the benefit of this extensive research knowledge nationally for the public whenever Congress concludes from its studies that the facts warrant. The vehicle manufacturers have recognized their obligations fully, and acknowledge also the responsibilities which the Congress has in this matter.

The vehicle manufacturers, given sufficient time, can do the job required in S. 306, but we sincerely believe the combined efforts of Government and industry pose questions which should be answered in considering new legislation.

Does a nationwide photochemical smog problem exist ?

Do the facts indicate that motor vehicles are the only air pollution source that should be controlled on a national basis?

How severe is the air pollution problem and the photochemical reaction in various cities, areas, and States?

Will the national control of vehicle emissions significantly improve their kinds of air pollution problem?

What has been the experience of efforts to control the many sources of air pollution in California ?

What are the economic aspects of the problem? Will expenditures to control vehicle emissions reduce the air pollution in varied communities in commensurate amounts, or where can funds best be applied to derive the greatest and most immediate benefits?

In the testimony last year, it was frankly stated that more information is needed to establish whether vehicle emissions do represent a nationwide problem to a degree that warrants control systems, and their expense and other complications, as is being required in California.

We do not intend to belabor this point, but a great deal of significance attaches to it, we believe, if a decision is to be made by Congress that will require substantial investment by every motorist in the Nation.

In this connection we want to cite the data published in the report of the hearings of this committee last June, subsequent to our own testimony.

The data to which we refer are based on an oxidant level of 0.15 parts per million, which is the criterion used by California to indi. cate the threshold at which eye irritation, reduced visibility, and plant damage may occur. There were two tabulations. They show the number of days in various cities during which the oxidant value reached or exceeded this threshold value for 1 hour or longer. Thes are published on page 887 of part 2 of the committee hearings.

The tabulation for 1963 was for the whole year, and reported that Los Angeles experienced 195 days, or 102 days, dependent on the meas

urement techniques used, during which this threshold was reached. Philadelphia never reached this level in 1963.

On the other hand, Chicago, San Francisco, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C., reached this threshold for 1 hour or longer, not more than 2 to 5 days of the entire year. The ratio of the various communities ranges from 20 to 1 to 40 to 1 in this tabulation.

A companion tabulation in the same report shows data for only the first part of 1964, up to June 14, before the Los Angeles basin area had gone through its autumn period of smog.

This tabulation showed a different relationship, as follows: Los Angeles, 13, or 24 days; Philadelphia, 6 days; Chicago, 2; San Francisco, 1; St. Louis, 1; Cincinnati, 0; Washington, D.C., 7.

Senator, these 1964 figures were only partial data based on less than 6 months experience in the cities listed. However, yesterday the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center of HEW provided information for the full year of 1964 showing the following: Los Angeles, 83 days at 0.15 parts per million; Philadelphia, 9 days; Chicago, 0; San Francisco, 1: St. Louis, 6; and Washington, D.C., 4. Apparently they measured in a different way because the earlier chart indicated a variance from what we have for the full year.

(There follows referenced data :)

CONTINUOUS AIR MONITORING PROGRAM

Days having maximum hourly oxidant (KI) equal to or greater than indicated

concentration

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »